Paper detail

The Neutron Star and Black Hole Initial Mass Function

Using recently calculated models for massive stellar evolution and supernovae coupled to a model for Galactic chemical evolution, neutron star and black hole birth functions (number of neutron stars and black holes as a function of their mass) are determined for the Milky Way Galaxy. For those stars that explode as Type II supernovae, the models give birth functions that are bimodal with peaks at 1.27 and 1.76 M\sun \ and average masses within those peaks of 1.28 and 1.73 M\sun. For those stars that explode as Type Ib there is a narrower spread of remnant masses, the average being 1.32 M\sun, and less evidence for bimodality. These values will be increased, especially in the more massive Type II supernovae, if significant accretion continues during the initial launching of the shock, and the number of heavier neutron stars could be depleted by black hole formation. The principal reason for the dichotomy in remnant masses for Type II is the difference in the presupernova structure of stars above and below 19 M\sun, the mass separating stars that burn carbon convectively from those that produce less carbon and burn radiatively. The Type Ib's and the lower mass group of the Type II's compare favorably with measured neutron star masses, and in particular to the Thorsett et al. (1993) determination of the average neutron star mass in 17 systems; 1.35 $\pm$ 0.27 M\sun. Variations in the exponent of a Salpeter initial mass function are shown not to affect the locations of the two peaks in the distribution function, but do affect their relative amplitudes. Sources of uncertainty, in particular placement of the mass cut and sensitivity to the explosion energy, are discussed, and estimates of the total number of neutron stars and black holes in the Galaxy are given. Accretion induced collapse should give a unique gravitational mass of 1.27

preprint1995arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.